KG Erwin -> The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (9/7/2008 3:26:54 AM)

Given that the plan to seize Quebec in 1775 was overambitious, I'm suggesting a different strategy. This would be to concentrate the Northern forces (Schuyler, Montgomery and Arnold) and take Montreal. This ties up the British, and allows the Continental Army (under Washington) to perhaps capture Boston in 1776 and consider alternatives for the future. This would mean leaving a strong garrison in Boston and shifting the Continental Army either north to complete the conquest of Canada or south to destroy the British bands roaming in the Carolinas. In any case, the Americans need to create at least three armies, each responsible for a strategic area. To my way of thinking, these regional armies would become in modern parlance "rapid response forces", to act upon local threats. The obvious problem is that they would operate independently, and rely upon local resources for reinforcements/supply.

This is how my notional "National strategy" would work, in theory. I have yet to test it in practice.

5_Star -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/14/2008 4:12:26 PM)

In playing the small scenario where you must capture Montreal and Quebec, I have done just what you proposed. I attacked and held Montreal, and I left Quebec alone. I also left Benedict Arnold's small force parked inside the fort he starts out in, as to not suffer any attrition loses from moving through the wilderness and mountains in the dead of winter. I did win on more VP's then the objectives but it was fun playing the scenario 5 or 6 times before I figured it out. (1775 scenario Canada Invasion: On to Quebec, Huzzah!)

This game almost feels like playing chess at times, especially with the small scenarios. I think your strategy is as viable as any, and I always thought Arnold trying to take Quebec was a bit of a stretch.

GShock -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/14/2008 5:39:38 PM)

I'm still at the french indian war unfortunately and i'm not yet "studied" on this historical period, one thing i can say is that the term "fast" can't be related to this game. There's no roads, no trains and there's constant supply and reinforcement issues.

Arsan -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/14/2008 7:28:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

I'm still at the french indian war unfortunately and i'm not yet "studied" on this historical period, one thing i can say is that the term "fast" can't be related to this game. There's no roads, no trains and there's constant supply and reinforcement issues.

I bet you are playing the British! [;)] Indians and irregulars (very numerous for the French) can move pretty fast, raid here and there, disappear suddenly and lay an ambush. They are even given the capacity of riverine movement as they are supposed to carry/improvise their own canoes/rafts [X(] But regulars loaded with guns and supply train will crawl aroudn as soon as they left the civilized areas. In WIA, much more so than in AACW rivers lakes and the sea act like highways/railways! Batteaux are very important.

Regards

5_Star -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/14/2008 10:08:01 PM)

Yeah I ave noticed the excellent speed irregulars posses while traveling through wilderness. If you have a general with the ranger trait it gets even better.

I also used the transports in the same scenario to get Monty's force near Montreal on the first turn. After that because of winter the ports freeze up and you can't really use them.

I think Ethan Allen shows up on the second or third turn of that scenario and he has irregulars and the ranger skill so he makes it up to help with the assault on Montreal. There is also a leader(forgot his name) with the slow mover trait which just kills any hopes of getting somewhere in the winter.

GShock -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/15/2008 12:42:03 PM)

The british also have indians...for one thing Athena must be taugth to do in WiA is to actively seek to destroy enemy indian villages, rather than seek to besiege and capture a british town which, with the irregular force only, is impossible. In the "a few acres of snow" the AI has proven very competent with a high FOW advantage. Logistical problems are paramount even for the british...you talk of the canadian problem, here in this campaign there's snow on most of the land for half a year...the offensive is not easy at all for the brits, even if they have a very powerful native leader...Canada is mostly frozen and when winter hits you during a siege you basically got to go back.

Bateaux are a very important unit...like transports of AACW they can build depots. I seem to understand that regardless the settlement size, the presence of a depot allows the arrival of replacements there, am i wrong?

5_Star -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/18/2008 4:18:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GShock

The british also have indians...for one thing Athena must be taugth to do in WiA is to actively seek to destroy enemy indian villages, rather than seek to besiege and capture a british town which, with the irregular force only, is impossible. In the "a few acres of snow" the AI has proven very competent with a high FOW advantage. Logistical problems are paramount even for the british...you talk of the canadian problem, here in this campaign there's snow on most of the land for half a year...the offensive is not easy at all for the brits, even if they have a very powerful native leader...Canada is mostly frozen and when winter hits you during a siege you basically got to go back.

Bateaux are a very important unit...like transports of AACW they can build depots. I seem to understand that regardless the settlement size, the presence of a depot allows the arrival of replacements there, am i wrong?

In the manual it states with the hardest attrition rules that you can only receive replacements in settlements with depots so I think you are correct.

What setting do you generally play with against the AI?

I pretty much won a major victory as the France in the Montcalm scenario on the default settings, the AI just seemed to be caught off guard at every turn and foolishly wasted Washington's troops early on in an attempt at Ft. Duquesne (in late autumn, which was easily thwarted by my irregular forces) then as winter set in with no where to go Washington again tried to siege Ft. Venango, which resulted in the annihilation of himself and his troops. [:(]

GShock -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/18/2008 7:39:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 5_Star In the manual it states with the hardest attrition rules that you can only receive replacements in settlements with depots so I think you are correct.

I actually see that they are received in depots but the replacements page states otherwise, specifying you only need a lev2 settlement whereas depots are not mentioned at all. Anyway yes, if you build a depot, wherever it is, you can get replacements there...the problem is that u can't basically build anything u can only buy supply carts and you need to seriously assess the tradeoff for you don't know when u'll be able to buy more and it takes 2 to build a depot. This is one of the hardest choices imo. The turn is 30 day long and not only the carts take hits in winter, sheltering your troops, but to siege a big settlement u need more troops and more troops use up more supply so...more carts. This uncertainty on the availability of future supply carts is a big challenge for the player.

The real issue i had in the Acres of snow, comes with Louisbourg fortress. There's a 400 combat factors force there and i have to send a similar force to siege the structure. They use up 3 carts per turn, then it takes 1 more turn to embark the supply and 1 more to disembark it in Halifax (with composite distant unload move). 1 more turn to replenish supply and again 2 turns to get back there again with 1 final turn to actually join forces and give them food. It takes but one french trooper to arrive at the siege area via sea and help raise the siege for combat so i also need to keep ships blockading 2 sea zones around Louisburg with NO ship replacements ever available (which is a thing i pointed out in pvt and which is being examined as we speak). I think things being what they are...regardless of replacements coming at Halifax there's no way to make Louisburg fortress fall. The territory neighboring it is originally indian, so even if you capture it, you can't build a depot there.

quote:

What setting do you generally play with against the AI?

I pretty much won a major victory as the France in the Montcalm scenario on the default settings, the AI just seemed to be caught off guard at every turn and foolishly wasted Washington's troops early on in an attempt at Ft. Duquesne (in late autumn, which was easily thwarted by my irregular forces) then as winter set in with no where to go Washington again tried to siege Ft. Venango, which resulted in the annihilation of himself and his troops. [:(]

AGE's AI is a calculator. The more it sees, the harder it is to fool it. Then it gets attracted to VP locations much like a real player but its "educated" to build a reasonable force to match the enemy it sees. Differently from AACW, when u separate an inactive leader the subleader is ALSO inactive. This makes, according to me, useless the AI bonus on activation for its main reason, in my point of view, is to give it the ability to storm a structure (which is not possible when the leader is inactive so on no advantage you are playing really even). Of course, a bonus there, also allows you to fight an AI without penalties in combat but i have preferred so far to play both slight and no advantage in this field without noticing a significant difference in balance.

The most important setting is the Fog of War advantage. With High advantage it's a very very credible opponent while in normal you can really see it wanders about without a real goal. The AI has vastly improved with 1.02c and the d version can't be far...in fact, my report on the CTD allowed the DEVs to see the bug. Given as obvious, the AI has to have an optimized behaviour and more time to think, of course, i also ignored the easy/hard setting for I am on the offensive and it doesn't make sense to give an extra advantage to defenders.

Can't wait for this patch to come out so i will restart the Acres of snow campaign. [:)] This game is not just a masterpiece, it's a work of art, the natural evolution of a winning project. In due time it will become technically much much better than AACW and, under many aspects, it already is.

5_Star -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/18/2008 10:19:33 PM)

15.2 Hardened Attrition Option Players may choose to play the game using the Hardened Attrition Option. This rule, while more realistic, will result in increased losses due to attrition as the name indicates. All units, regardless of whether they have moved during the current game turn, are subject to attrition under this option unless they occupy a structure. Also, units will not be eligible to receive replacement strength points or elements unless they remain stationary and occupy a Depot.

I think this will only make the choice of where and when to build depots a huge decision, as like you said you need supply wagons for behind enemy lines and large armies.

Speaking of hardened attrition, is there a setting in the options separate from the historical attrition? Or is it just the middle and far right settings are hardened?

GShock -> RE: The Canadian Problem in the Revolution (11/19/2008 7:25:26 AM)

Well the historical attrition can work both on you and the AI or just on you. Thats about it iirc.